Guns, The First and Last of a Series

 The Gun Owner's Mind

This entry will serve as the finale to the firearm extravaganza I've written over the past few weeks.  It's intended to provide a bit of illumination into the minds of gun owners, which may be helpful for those who don't live abroad or believe we buy guns in order to stoke the evil in our hearts.  

By now, you know I like to deal in facts, so I'll start with some additional statistics relevant to this discussion.  According to a 2019 Pew Research poll, 44% of Americans say they either own a gun or live with someone who does.  Among those who own guns, 66% report owning more than one gun, with 29% owning more than five guns.  32% admit to providing a lower number to reflect what they've told their wives.  I may have made that last one up.  At 67%, protection is the number one motivation for gun ownership, followed by hunting (38%), sport shooting (30%), gun collecting (13%), and because it's required for their job (8%).  

The piece of data that I think brings illumination into the mind of a gun owner is that roughly half grew up with guns in their household.  I know a lot of folks that fall into this category, including myself.  My grandfather had guns and he taught me how to shoot at an early age.  He had a lever action 22 rifle (which is now in my safe) and we'd go shoot cans on his property.  It was a lot of fun, learning how to aim, properly pull the trigger, and satisfying when you hit what you were aiming at.  He heavily stressed gun safety, along with being responsible and cleaning your gun immediately after you were done.  

How Gun Owners See Firearms

This is the meat and potatoes that I think is important for those not familiar with guns to read.  There is one important concept the reader needs to if not grasp, recognize.  Most of us who own guns find shooting them to be enjoyable.  Yesterday, I grabbed a couple of guns and went to my club.  It was both relaxing and rewarding to put four bullets through the same hole at one hundred yards.  Once I'm fully vaccinated, I'll begin competing again.  If you read my original entry where I outline that decision, you already know I did it for the social aspect as much as the shooting itself.  

In order to drive my point home, I'll share one additional experience for those who still think we're nuts for enjoying these death machines.  A few of the women I've dated, including my now ex-wife, were hardcore anti gun liberals.  They didn't want anyone to have a gun, particularly an evil AR-15.  In each of those instances, I offered to take them shooting, so they could experience the AR-15's dearth of evil for themselves.  All took me up on the offer (partially because they knew I would have dumped them had they not) and said roughly the same thing to me:  When can we go again?  Shooting is fun, people! 

As an ambassador for gun owners everywhere, I'm willing to make the same offer to any other attractive women who've never been shooting and want to sleep with me.

Recognizing shooting as a legitimate and non-evil hobby brings us that much closer to a meeting of the minds.  With that established, it wouldn't be unreasonable for those in that hobby to want a variety of guns to enjoy.  Guns are typically at a median price point where you won't bankrupt yourself for acquiring more than one; $800-$1,500.  But prices run across an entire spectrum.  The least expensive gun I own is a Russian Makarov I bought when they first became available in the US.  I bought it because 'first Russian gun you can buy in the US and it's only $100'.  That gun is worth $550 now, which illustrates another point; you'll almost never lose money on one.  You can spend a whole lot more, obviously.  A custom 1911 can set you back up to $8k and taken sixty steps further, a pair of shotguns built by Holland and Holland can set you back close to half a million dollars.  They'd better come with a concierge blowjob service for that money.  

If you grew up with guns, you may have also inherited a few that live in your safe, such as the 22 lever action rifle I mentioned above or the 32 caliber revolver that my great great grandfather carried as a constable.  Those can add up as well.

Touching on owning a gun for protection, I think I'm similar to others in that I consider such as gun to be a tool.  Along with the vast majority who own guns for protection, I didn't make the decision from an imminent threat, rather something to have in case it's needed.  Unless we live in a certain type of neighborhood or are employed in a high risk job, we recognize the need to utilize that tool to be infinitesimally small.   However, just like a flashlight or fire extinguisher, it's there if we find ourselves in a situation where that type of tool is required.  

At the risk of another digression, let me address a common misperception / belief that many non-gun owners have about law enforcement.  Specifically, that only law enforcement (LE) is properly trained and should therefore be the only ones to carry guns.  In my experience, and that of many other shooters I know, LE as a whole is comically unskilled, when it comes to firearm capability and safety.  According to a friend of mine, one of the favorite past times for local shooters is to go to a particular indoor range when the Overland Park PD is about to requalify with their handguns.  Just don't be in the same room, because you'll see the cops put bullets into the floor, through the ceiling, and everywhere else, save the target they were supposed to be shooting.  When I was actively competing, I also served as the range safety officer for the squad I was with.  I only ever had to disqualify two shooters for unsafe gun handling.  One accidentally put a round into the dirt midway between the two of us (which was about 18") and the other swept my chest with a loaded gun, when they turned the wrong way during a stage (closest I've ever come to shitting my pants).  What they had in common was, you guessed it, both were LE.  

Hopefully, that answers the three most common questions to those of us who own guns:  Why do you own guns?  Do you really need a gun?  Why do you feel the need to have so many guns?

I've done my best to be a good ambassador and provide some insight to those who the concept of owning guns may be alien or unsettling.  

Culture of Fear

Perhaps I've cleared up a few misconceptions, but the media and libs continue to stoke the fear of guns.  Today provides a perfect example.  CNN is reporting that there have been TWENTY mass shootings between the time of the Atlanta spa killings and yesterday, when a gunman killed four in Los Angeles.  (I obviously wrote this a few days ago.)  Holy shit!  There really is an epidemic!  Except CNN is manipulating the numbers to make a more sensational story.  As I noted in my other entries on the topic, the FBI / Federal Government defines a mass shooting as an event that claimed four or more lives.  Mother Jones uses a lower threshold of three deaths.  However, CNN considers a mass shooting to be one that has a total of four deaths or wounded.  Others don't use the number of wounded specifically  because of how broad the definition can be.  Taking a small bullet fragment into your leg doesn't do anything but hurt (been there, done that), but it still counts as a wound.  In other words, I could fire a few rounds into the sidewalk of a crowded street and it would be considered a mass shooting by CNN, due to bullet fragments finding people's legs.  Worth noting is that the Mother Jones database doesn't list any mass shootings during the same period CNN claims twenty took place.   

One could argue that the right has stoked fear among gun owners over civil unrest and the government coming for their guns, causing them to buy and hoard everything they can get their hands on.  One could just as easily argue the left has done the same thing.  This is one area in which I'll admit to being biased.  To me, having a sufficient firepower to deal with as many zombies that come my way is called being properly prepared.  

Wrapping Up

Throughout this series, I've done my best to be an ambassador for my fellow gun owners.  Hopefully,  readers no longer view owning firearms, particularly multiples, as some sort of aberrant behavior.  That owning multiple guns makes one even more dangerous to society.  

I'm tired of being demonized by the left because they want an easy villain, instead of taking action against the real problems.  There's no way the libs can't recognize taking away guns will only cause more people to want them.  However, most Americans don't have the attention span to digest complex social issues.  They want someone or something to blame and government to make it go away.  

Thanks for making it through the long slog on the gun topic.  I hope you consider the time you spent reading these entries to have some value. 

Addressing Gun Violence - The Prequel

Based upon some of the questions and comments from readers of my previous entries on gun violence, I thought it may be of value to step back and examine the origin's of America's gun culture and why it's perpetuated.  In addition, I'll throw out some gun owner's insight on our hobby. 

Gun Culture in the USA

In order to best understand why the US has the gun culture it does, I find it helpful to explore why other countries don't.  Let's go back to the founding of this country for a quick look at the two sides that fought each other.  The bad guys lived under a monarchy and were professional soldiers for the largest empire on the planet, where the good guys, who kicked their asses, had a fledgling democratic government and were anything but professional soldiers.  This is the first glimpse of the everyman as a hero, in this country, fighting for his very freedom.  This underdog kept his musket by the front door, should he be called upon by his country again.  What about his opponent, the Red Coat?  Once he came home, and exited his service, he had no further need for a musket.  Not as though anyone was threatening to invade England.  By then, Europe was mostly stable, relative to fighting between neighboring countries.  When fighting did break out, it was conducted by professional armies.  

Wrapping that thought, I would suggest that the length of time and circumstances in which a country gained their independence represent significant factors in their views toward guns and gun ownership.  The US had to fight for its independence from another country less than 250 years ago in a war waged by everyman soldiers.  I'll contrast that with two other random countries.  France's independence came after that of the US, but they fought themselves, which doesn't count.  The country hadn't been under another country's rule for centuries by then.  Because it's been highlighted as having one of the lowest rates of gun violence, I'll pick on Iceland.  Their actual independence took place in the 19th century, so not that long ago.  However, it didn't involve any bloodshed; they essentially just informed Denmark 'you're not the boss of us anymore'.  How stable the country is overall also plays a role, with gun violence inversely proportional to the amount of internal strife (i.e. most of Central America).

Finally, I don't think it's possible to overstate the importance of system of government on a country's views toward gun ownership.  Until WWI, every country in Europe was run by a monarch, mostly all from the same German family (hence the stability).  And monarchs aren't terribly fond of the general populous owning weapons that could be used to overthrow them.  The same can be said for dictators.  In any case, living in monarchies, Europe had been accustomed to not having guns for centuries.  That makes understanding America's gun culture baffling for those who live there.  

Returning to America, once freedom had been won, it was time to explore the rest of our great land.  Those pioneers and explorers carried guns to hunt for food as well as defend themselves from bears and the like.  They also carried for another reason that continues to echo today.  There's not much law enforcement present when there isn't a state, much less a town to elect a sheriff.  In other words, you were left to your own devices to defend yourself against those who may wish to do you harm, so a gun  could come in quite handy. 

Guns in Popular Culture

That segues perfectly into popular culture and the theme of rugged individualism that's echoed for a couple of centuries now.  In American pop culture, when someone is murdered or grievously wronged, the hero that brings justice to the bad guy(s) is rarely law enforcement, or at least not typical law enforcement.  In many cases, American pop culture portrays law enforcement as incapable, lacking latitude to enforce the law, or even corrupt.  Another set of random examples.  John Rambo had to defend himself from corrupt law enforcement in the first movie, then, still shunned by the establishment, goes back to Vietnam and rescues POW's and returns a hero.  Who doled out justice when they killed his dog?  John Wick, of course.  The only time when law enforcement is portrayed as the hero is when one member goes rogue.  Case in point - While John McClain was a cop, he was essentially a rogue cop, who had to contend not only with Hans Gruber and company trying to kill him, but the LAPD's incompetence.  He was the true hero of Nakatomi Plaza.  And that's what most American men want to see themselves as - the rugged hero who kicks ass.  And kicking ass requires a lot of firepower!  For most American wannabe's, the only elite unit they would be qualified for is Meal Team Six, but that's another story.  Contrast that with how law enforcement is portrayed in other countries' pop cultures, where they're shown as professional, capable, and bring the bad guy to justice as a team, through hard work and intellect.  At most, rules are bent, but never thrown out the window.  

Stay tuned for the final installment coming soon.

Addressing Gun Violence, Part 2

Welcome back...this one promises to be quite the roller coaster ride, so please buckle in and secure all loose items.

We'll begin Part 2 with...

The Evil Black Rifle
Yes, it's been called that by those who want to ban the AR-15.  The AR-15 is the civilian variant of the M-16 and is semiautomatic, with one round fired with each press of the trigger, versus the full auto.  Because full auto is all but impossible to control, most M-16's are now built with semi auto and three round burst fire capability.  I own a number of AR-15's and find them to be a blast to shoot, no pun intended.  

The AR-15 is available in an almost unlimited number of configurations.  From small form factor guns with 7" barrels, to bench rest style rifles with 20" heavy barrels.  Obviously, you can buy your AR-15, but they're surprisingly easy to work on, so the average person with a bit of mechanical aptitude can build one in an afternoon.  This allows for the builder to have a gun that's exactly the way they want it.  I built all of mine.    

Worth noting is that because it's a design, not a brand or trade name, there is no such thing as an 'AR-15 style rifle'; it's either an AR-15 or not in the same way an engine is either a V8 or not.  Something to help you be a bit smarter than the talking heads on the news.  

What makes the AR so much fun is also what makes it so effective for mass casualties.  Inside a certain distance from your target, you can point a (any) rifle instead of having to aim it, there are magazines available with capacities up to 60 rounds, and each round delivers three times more muzzle energy than one from a 9mm pistol (assuming standard 556 NATO ammunition).  These attributes are also what makes the AR the standard in 3 Gun competition.

AR-15's are also available in other calibers.  My home defense gun is chambered in 300 Blackout, which was designed to 

It might surprise you to learn the AR-15 has been available to civilians since the 1960's.  However, it was largely overlooked by enthusiasts for its first thirty years on the market.  It wasn't a good hunting gun and a rifle for personal defense was ludicrous.   That remained the case until 1994, when its popularity skyrocketed.  What took place to cause such a shift?  Quite simple actually; the AR-15, along with the AK-47, were banned.  Note: I'm skipping detail on the AK platform because it only enjoys a fraction of the AR's popularity.  

The crime bill / assault weapons ban of 1994 was partially geared toward taking military style rifles off the market and prohibited rifles containing more than a few key traits from being manufactured or imported.  It also prohibited the manufacture or import of magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds.  Rifle manufacturers got around the ban by removing the traits of lesser importance (i.e. bayonet lug and flash hider) and continued production, shipping guns with 10 round magazines.  The author of the crime bill screamed that manufacturers were gaming the system.  The manufacturers responded that they were complying with the law and that they had staff to keep employed.  The AR-15 suddenly received a great deal of attention and demand.  Nothing makes people want something more than when the government says they can't have it.  A friend of mine who owns a gun shop told me there were tons of people coming in, many first time gun owners, to buy the last pre-ban AR's and even the post-ban versions, for that exact reason.  Apparently, they'd walk in and say, "I want whatever the government says I shouldn't have."

It should be no surprise the bill didn't accomplish anything except drive up prices for pre-ban equipment, and had zero effect on crimes committed with guns.  Because anything made prior to the 1994 ratification could still be owned and sold, you could still get high capacity mags (although they became $70 instead of $15) and watered down AR's were just as capable as pre-ban versions.  Not to mention manufacturers went bonkers building as much inventory as possible before the ban went into effect.  Word was that Glock was using their entire allocation of import dollars to send container after container of high capacity magazines, in order to get as many as possible in under the deadline.

The crime bill had a provision to sunset after ten years, unless it was renewed, which it wasn't.  By 2004, there was a great deal of pent up demand for the rifle that everyone suddenly wanted and production ramped up accordingly.  When I bought my first AR during the time the bill, there were only three or four manufacturers who offered them; now that number is closer to forty, if not higher.  There's a whole cottage industry around parts to build your own AR-15, which is I did on the ones I currently own.  That also means tens of thousands of jobs now rely on the AR-15.  At this point, it's worth returning to the Mother Jones mass shooting database, to either confirm or refute timing of AR-15's rise in popularity.  Indeed, despite being available for decades, the first mass shooting where the weapon was an AR didn't occur until 2006.  

It's about now you should be asking yourself what idiot wrote the bill that made the AR-15 so popular.  He's the same idiot calling to ban them now, then Senator now President Joe Biden.  That's right, Joe Biden is responsible for the AR-15's popularity.  Show of hands; who didn't see that one coming?  Regardless, he's arguably the last person on earth suited formulate a plan to address gun violence.

Clearly a ban on new production wouldn't work any better than it did the last time, particularly when a massive supply of existing guns exists, but what if it was taken a step further?  What if it suddenly became illegal to possess such rifles?  The term 'complete failure' comes to mind.  First, it would be contested in court, winding up in front of the Supreme Court (with a conservative majority), who would strike it down for violating the Second Amendment.  If you remember bump stocks from the Vegas Strip shooting, you may be alarmed to learn a court recently overturned the ban on those.  But what if it was upheld?  Such a law would be completely unenforceable for a few reasons.  First, those you must rely on to enforce the law oppose such a ban too.  In response to the potential assault weapons ban in Virginia, dozens of chief law enforcement officers declared they wouldn't enforce it.  There's no reason to believe a nationwide ban wouldn't receive the same widespread support.  Second, no one in their right mind will turn in their guns.  Would you blindly hand over something you invested so much money and time into?  As a benchmark, I'm probably about average for most law abiding AR owners and I've got just shy of $10k invested.  I predict there will be an amazing rash of boating accidents, where everyone's guns fell overboard, in a thousand feet of water.  Tragic.  Or they'd flat out not comply (or worse).  Third, there would still be the DIY crowd making 80% guns (long topic on itself, but feel free to read up on your own) and replenishing the supply.

It all reminds me of a conversation I had with a Dutch colleague, while driving through a sketchy area of Rotterdam.  He indicated there were a lot of shootings in that area.  I pointed out that guns were all but impossible to get not only in the Netherlands, throughout Europe.  He responded, 'yeah, but criminals will always get their hands on guns.'  

Before I wrap up on the evil black rifle, I'd like to address a few other challenges gun owners have gotten relative to owning AR-15's.  First is the ever popular 'why do you need such a thing?'  The answer is I don't need it, but as a law abiding citizen, I'm allowed to.  I hate coffee, so why do you need to give Starbucks $8 every morning?  My second favorite is 'civilians shouldn't have weapons of war'.  Newsflash, 75% of guns on the market began as weapons of war.  That Colt 45 that everyone loves was designed to be used as by soldiers as their sidearm, when going to war.  Finally, there's the ever popular 'that gun was designed to kill'.  Again, that applies to 95% of the guns out there, either through use in defending your family or to humanely hunt an animal.  No, we won't venture down that rabbit hole.  

So, should the AR-15 (and other military style rifles) really be banned?  I get it - mass shootings are ugly, traumatic, and more frequently involve children and are carried out with military style rifles.  However much of a shock to the system, the fact is they're statistically insignificant and banning them is nothing greater than a knee jerk reaction.  For additional context, there were 60% more murders in Chicago (where you can't legally buy a gun) last year than mass shooting victims in the past DECADE.  Not to mention FBI statistics say that 70% of homicides involving firearms are carried out with handguns, not military style rifles or rifles period.   Banning AR-15's / AK-47 rifles based upon 0.6% of all shootings will make the left all feel good about themselves and tell everyone how they've made America a safer place.  Except for the reasons above, mass shooters will keep on using the rifles.

Speaking of Chicago and shooting related deaths, Kina Collins of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence was recently interviewed by NPR.  She took issue with the President's laser focus on mass shootings and an assault weapons ban.  "That's not what we're dealing with in communities that deal with everyday gun violence," she said. "We're dealing with hand guns. We're dealing with straw purchases, we're dealing with illegal guns floating across the borders into states. That's what we're dealing with."

  

So what can be done to decrease the number of firearm related deaths?  First, I think rather than focusing on what trigger is being pulled, attention should be focused why the trigger's being pulled in the first place.  Anyone with half a brain should be able to make that distinction.  Having half a brain myself, that's what I'll focus on.  First, I think that more and more people live solitary lives without support structures and succumb to mental illness leaving them feel hopeless or that the world is against them. On a side note, why is it the greater a boring loser someone is, the more they're convinced the government is spying on them?  But people feel less included and more disenfranchised as time goes by.  However, I also think too many people have been raised to be self absorbed little snowflakes that don't understand the word 'resilience'.  So many murders are to 'get back at someone' for shit that is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.  Being disrespected is part of life; get over it.  Your significant other dumped you for your best friend?  Get over it and bang his mother, not shoot both of them, you moron.  How many of us were bullied as children, but the thought of killing anyone over such transgressions never crossed our minds?  My dad grew up in a rural area.  Almost every guy had a rifle or shotgun in their car, at school, because they all went hunting after.  If you had a beef with someone, it was settled with fists after school; no one ever grabbed a gun over whatever it was.  

Finally, there are those who want their fifteen minutes of fame and are willing to kill to get it.  Finally finally, shitty parenting has a great deal of impact, beyond raising snow flakes.  Two perfect examples of how decent parenting would have prevented mass shootings - Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened if the shooter's mother had half a brain and not tried to connect to her mentally ill son through shooting. (He shot her and took the guns)  The Columbine shooters were a couple of complete sociopaths that had exhibited plenty of warning signs ahead of that shooting.  Where the fuck were their parents?

Make no mistake, I'm completely behind universal background checks and other reasonable measures to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands.  Universal should be emphasized here, because not all states perform their checks in the same manner.  NICS is the FBI's national background check system and, from what I've been able to uncover, queries their terror watchlist on each inquiry.  However, only 36 states currently use NICS, the remainder either carrying out checks at the state level or using some sort of hybrid model.  As someone pointed out, the Boulder shooter was on an FBI terror watchlist, yet still received approval to purchase his firearm.  Colorado isn't one of the 36, instead using their own homegrown system.  Had CO been a NICS state, the approval likely would have been denied, preventing another mass shooting.  Again, universal background checks are a good thing, are effective, and that's a no brainer.  

But other actions have to be taken to decrease gun violence or we never address the root cause.  Banning weapons, aside from it not working, sends the message 'we've given up on our society'.  We need to begin taking better care of each other or things will only get worse; gun violence will be the least of our concerns.  

Random comment that didn't have a home, but worth including:
You can't legally make your AR a fully automatic weapon without a full background check, waiting close to a year, and spending $30k.  You can make it full auto illegally in an afternoon without much effort.  There are devices on the market that simulate full auto, such as binary triggers, that fire a round not only when you pull the trigger, but also when you release it.  And let's not forget the bump stock that became famous after the Las Vegas Strip massacre.  Personally, I have an issue with these workarounds; no one's fooling anyone with them.  However, at what point do you draw the line?  That's a question I continue to ask myself.  

Addressing Gun Violence, Yeah I'm Going There

Having plenty of time on my hands, along with recent events, has almost guaranteed me eventually wading into this topic.  As a gun owner / enthusiast, a closet liberal, and non-extremist, I think I'm able to speak intelligently about firearms without venturing toward the fringe.  This entry will consist of both my own observations and beliefs as well as non-cherry picked statistics.  First, let me make it clear I'm appalled by the level of gun violence in the US.  There are too many lives being taken as a result of bad actors and regardless of how the reader may interpret the following, I don't take any of it lightly.  I'll admit, up front, that I think a ban of any kind would be fruitless and I'll explain why.  Regardless,  we have to view the subject dispassionately if we are to draw any meaningful conclusions.  

Because there's a lot to unpack, I'm breaking the topic into two parts.  In Part 1, we'll set the stage with some statistics and address some fallacies.  Part 2 will talk about the evil black rifle, then finish big with how to address gun violence.  

Mass Homicides

We'll start with the stats on mass homicides (I may use mass shootings interchangeably, because frankly it's easier to type), which is defined as an event involving a firearm that results in four or more deaths.  These events are the ones that grab the headlines and bring the most outrage.  Mother Jones maintains an excellent database of these events, that includes a lot of detail on the shooter, weapon used, etc.  Links to that and the FBI database I'll refer to will be at the end.  Also, I've stopped with 2019, because with everyone under lockdown in 2020, there weren't really opportunities for mass anything.

The data says there have been 102 mass shootings since 1982, resulting in in a total of 918 deaths.  If we break the data into time periods, an alarming trend emerges.  Between 2000 and 2009, there were 171 mass shooting deaths, versus 482 the following decade.  The number of mass shootings more than doubled as well.  Because Mother Jones' database lists the firearms used in each event, we can determine how many deaths were the result of the shooter using an AR-15 / AK. military style rifle.    Assuming any unspecified semiautomatic rifle to be an AR-15 or AK, that number for 2010-2019 is 254, or half of the the deaths from mass shootings.  The decade prior saw 5 mass shootings, using these weapons, with a death toll of 33, and 2 in the 80's, with a total death toll of 15.  This is reflected in average number of deaths per event, which peaked in 2017 at almost 20, although it's been in the single digits since 2018.  Clearly, the AR-15, along with the AK platform, represent a serious threat, with respect to mass shootings.  I'll dig into the AR-15 in the second part because there's a lot about this gun I'm sure most aren't aware of.  

Overall Firearm Related Homicides
Back to the stats.  Before we jump to any conclusions, based on the mass homicides, let's put some context around them.   According to FBI statistics, the total number of firearm related murders, from 2012 through 2019, was 78,162.  That's a pretty astonishing number, which we'll dig into a bit later, but the positive thing is it's been trending downward since 2017.  If we compare mass homicides with total homicides, using firearms from 2012 through 2019, the former represents roughly 0.6% of the total deaths noted above.  Not even one percent of total firearm murders.  Again, please don't take my comments as being dismissive, but the fact is that, while mass shootings get all the headlines, they're statistically a footnote in the bigger picture.  Quite frankly, it would be dumb to base legislation on something of this magnitude, or lack thereof.  

Digging into the FBI numbers a bit more, another story begins to emerge.  The FBI statistics break down homicides by weapon.  I'm happy to report strangulations are trending seriously downward, whereas murder using explosives is showing growth, although not quite, um, explosive growth.  Firearms numbers are further broken down by type: handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc.  There's also a category of 'Firearms, type not stated', which I find problematic, considering it's over a quarter of the total.  Looking at unmanipulated numbers, in 2019, handguns represented 62% of the 10,258 firearms related homicides, but were trending downward from 68% in 2013.  Rifles were only 4%.  Back to the not specified bucket, I think it would be cherry picking to not divvy that up a bit (although the Daily Caller had no issue doing so), knowing how much AR-15's have proliferated recently.  I went with 20% for rifles, which caused them to jump to 10% of firearm homicides in 2019, or 1,020 fatalities.  Taking supposition a step further, we'll err on the high side and say military style rifles account for 60% of that.  Wrapping a bow on the stats, military style rifles only accounted for 6% of firearms related homicides in 2019.  This is the first time when you ask yourself what impact banning such rifles would have on overall gun violence.

Moving on to fallacies, there are two I'd like to cover.  First is the assertion that it's easier to get a gun now than ever and that guns are flooding the streets.  This is complete horseshit.  First, all fifty states now mandate some sort of background check (either with the state or the federal NICS system) to purchase a handgun, regardless of where it's bought.  That hasn't always been the case, with some states only recently enacting the requirement.  As far as guns flooding the streets, I've heard those same words since the 90's; the same dog whistle over and over.  Actually, since the beginning of last year, gun sales have been at record highs, driven by the pandemic, then the civil unrest, followed by a Democrat being elected president.  This does concern me because of how many gun buyers during this period are first time buyers, who haven't had proper training available to them, because of the pandemic.  The impact from either accidental or intentional discharge of guns will increase in the near term; you can count on that.  

That brings us to the so-called gun show loophole.  Essentially, this is an instance where one party buys a gun privately from another individual, without a background check.  It's supposedly rampant at gun shows, but that's horseshit as well.  If you're selling guns at your table, you have to be have an Federal Firearms License (FFL) or you're going to jail.  And a gun show is a pretty public forum to engage in such activities.  Also, see previous explanation about required background checks.  Can you prevent people from taking possession of a firearm without a background check?  Of course not.  A perfect example is a 38 Special I took possession of from my father, recently.  It was his father's gun.  Did my father have a background check when he inherited it?  No.  Did I?  No.  (To the ATF, if you're reading this - before you swoop down and kill my dog, I've undergone 7 fucking FBI NFA background checks in the past 18 months, so you can fuck right the hell off.)

Stay tuned for Part 2

Mother Jones Mass Shooting Database

FBI Data

Always Remember You're Special

 ...just like every other guy who's paying attention to me.  

I recently had an interlude, for lack of a better term, with someone whose identity shall remain a mystery that broke new ground in a number of undesirable ways.  On paper, she was a great fit for me (super smart, submissive, well read, hot), but distance precluded anything substantive from developing between the two of us.  Still, it was nice to interact and exchange ideas.  As she wandered into what something between us would look like, were the distance removed, she became quite effusive with her praise, referring to me as 'divine' and using phrases such as 'meant to be'.  You get the idea.

Of course, I wasn't the only man she was chatting with, which she confirmed.  She also admitted to craving attention from certain types of men.  Your grandmother would have called her 'boy crazy'.  But surely, she wasn't sharing such intense sentiments with other men, right?  There couldn't be multiple divine men out there.  Yeah, not so much.  She admitted espousing the same sentiments to other men.  Her rationale was she used them in a different context than was typical, and telling me of course, there's a back story.   Of course...there's always a back story.

I think you'll agree that a shared language is important for well, everything.  Back story or not, a soldier sitting in an underground silo can't one day decide that saying 'we have authorization to launch the missiles' really means he's going into town for a pastrami on rye.

Needless to say, I severed ties after hearing that little gem.  That was late last week.  I've since happily moved on and reconnected with someone I should have held onto.  But for some reason, I felt compelled this afternoon to revisit the communication I had with the woman who called me divine (she's right, you know).  I feared I was being too harsh toward her.  Nah, should have been more harsh.  

In scanning her notes, I uncovered two instances where her effusive praise was wrapped in an agreement to something I never said.  This woman was copy pasting the exact same material to multiple men!  Let me say it again; she was sending the same messages to multiple guys.  If you've kept up with my blog, you know that I've seen a lot of different 'interesting' behaviors from women.  But here's something brand new for the annals of dating history.

A Night With His Toy

Per his instructions, she arrived and rang the doorbell at exactly eight p.m.  Looking through the side glass of the door, he could see her standing in her tie closure spring coat, with her conservative knee length skirt and flats; she exuded confidence.  To anyone who passed by, she looked all the part of the accomplished university professor she was, the epitome of prim and proper.  Well, a very attractive university professor.  At just under five feet tall, and weighing ninety pounds on an off day, she was petite in every way.  Most of her friends knew her for her keen intellect, endless optimism, and joie de vivre.  Only he knew of her other side; the side he created at her request.  He opened the door and she glided past him, not stopping until reaching the great room.  Catching up to her, he helped her with her coat.  Her attire underneath was a pleasant surprise; she wore a flowered, yet completely transparent top, her pert breasts unspoiled by a bra.  She knew he loved such surprises and did her best to please him, because that was her job.  She was his dirty slut, his property, and she took that role very seriously.  

As he admired her form beneath the gauzy material, he took note that her nipples already resembled little pebbles, in anticipation of what was to come.  He had a few twists to throw her way tonight that would excite her that much more.  Some nights would involve reminding her of her place, which would find her being shoved her to her knees and made to worship his cock, right in the foyer.  When she misbehaved, he would order her to finish him off, right there, then turn her around and push her back out the door.  That always left her feeling both used and unfulfilled and she loved it.  But not tonight; he would put his toy to proper use.

As always, he offered her a glass of wine, knowing full well her Muslim beliefs would prevent her from accepting.  It always struck him that she refused to imbibe, yet welcomed, no, demanded the decidedly non-traditional treatment he would be subjecting her to shortly.  They sat on the sofa, chatting about this and that.  He enjoyed their interaction and could find an evening of deep conversation with her fulfilling on its own.  While they talked, he could see her become physically unsettled  to the point where suddenly, she became the aggressor, straddling, then wrapping her arms around him and kissing him passionately.  Her body was giving off the unmistakable message of 'take me to bed and fuck the hell out of me'.  While such behavior was not in line with their roles, he very much did appreciate an aggressive woman, on occasion.

He grabbed her hair and yanking her head back, admonished 'not so fast, you seem to have forgotten something.  We'll take it to the bedroom.'

She was well acquainted with the most direct route and eagerly led the way, like a child who wants her parents to catch up so they can get on the roller coaster.  She stopped in the large, open area of his bedroom, and stood there, looking at him intently.  She knew what was expected of her, but being manhandled by him turned her on more than if she'd done it of her own volition.  A few seconds later, she got her wish, as he roughly shoved her to her knees. 

'You know you need to demonstrate your worthiness as my whore and possession, before I touch you.  Now get to it.'

He barely got the words out before her hands were on his zipper, extracting his hardening cock.  She was on fire tonight and dispensed with the tease, instead devouring him to the root.  

'You've become such a good little cocksucker.  Perhaps I should share you with a few of my young subordinates, so you can show off your skills.'

She knew he was creating a mood and that he understood such an act was a bridge too far for her, for now.  That didn't prevent her from gushing a little over the thought of being used by multiple men.  And she really was proud of how well she'd learned to service a man, since he took ownership of her.  

Her eyes were glazed over with pure lust as she worked his now rock hard manhood with her lips, tongue, and hands.  He could see she was in her own world of desire and had to snap her back to reality, before she brought him to the point of no return.  She had become such a cum slut, that he barely recognized the naïve woman he'd begun training a few short months ago, incapable of providing a a pleasurable blowjob.   

He grabbed her arm, yanked her to her feet, then roughly shoved her, face down, on the bed.  Moving forward until he trapped her with his body, he snarled, 'God, you're such a whore...you come over here just to have my cock in you.  And you won't be happy unless you leave with my hot cum somewhere inside you.  Even if you didn't want it, I own you and can take whatever I wish.'

With that, he flipped up her skirt and shoved his cock inside her.  To someone observing the scene, it would genuinely appear as though she was being taken against her will, particularly the way he had to force himself inside her.  The truth was that this woman was petite in more than just stature and was always a tight fit.  Penetration took a bit of effort, even when she was soaked, as she was now.

Once inside, he began to slam himself into her, fucking her hard and fast, making sure to hold the angle he knew ravaged her sensitive g-spot.  She howled with pleasure as he took her.  It turned her on so much when her owner took what he wanted, her helpless to resist.  She could only let herself be in this position with a man she trusted completely, and her owner had earned that trust in spades.  

He grabbed her hair and yanked her head up so he could speak right into her ear.  

'Everyone else sees you as a respected university professor, but only I know what a slut you are.  What would your colleagues think if they discovered what you've become?  A dirty little plaything, who lives to be used like a whore, however I want, then tossed away until I wish to use you again.  You're nothing but a fuck toy.'

He kept hammering her, alternating between spanking her ass, pulling her hair, shoving her face into the bed, and twisting her arm around her back as he degraded her.  Each move was more extreme than the one before and he knew he was causing her pain.  This pleased him, not because he was a sadist, but because he knew pain, and lots of it, heightened her pleasure.  He derived pleasure from taking his lover places she'd never been before and pushing her limits.  Once again, he thought how reckless he had been, neglecting to establish a safe word, but such a precaution always proved unnecessary.  No matter how brutal he was with her, she always wanted more.  

'What are you?'

'I'm your whore...all of my holes belong to you.'

'And when can I use them?'

'Whenever you want!  I belong to you!'

She screamed nonstop as he pounded her and would orgasm every time he told her what a whore she was.  After he felt she'd been properly fucked in that position, he waited until he felt her building to another orgasm, then pulled out and told her to finish getting undressed.

She was frustrated and completely on fire, but she didn't dare complain.  She knew he wasn't done using her.  But she needed to cum, just the same...now.

'Lie on your back with your legs spread apart, like a good slut.  You know...your natural position in a bed.'

She complied.

'I think it's time for you to demonstrate what I've taught you about your body', he said as he sat down in a large leather chair in the corner.  'Show me that you know how to make yourself orgasm.  Give your owner a bit of a show, like a good girl.'

And like a good little fuck toy, she began rubbing her fingers around the lips of her battered pussy.   She maintained intense eye contact with her lover as the pleasure began to wash over her.  As much as she wanted to give him a proper spectacle, she needed a release.  With that, her opening act ended and she drove two fingers deep inside her sex, working her g-spot vigorously until her hips spasmed in climax.

After her body relaxed, she had a contented expression on her face and beckoned him to the bed.  Once he climbed in, she acted as like a sleepy kitten and snuggled up to her owner.  He held her and delivered kindness, a little laughter, and tenderness.  He hadn't yet heard the word aftercare. 

As they chatted, he saw she had something on her mind and looked at her with an expression that told her to just tell him.  In a barely audible and timid voice, she asked 'will you..to my butt tonight?'  He'd introduced her to anal sex a few encounters ago and she found she loved it better than vaginal intercourse.  

'You want me to fuck your ass?'

She nodded.

'If you want me to fuck your ass, you need to ask properly and not like an innocent little girl.  You're so far from innocent at this point...'  Chuckling, he let the remainder of the sentence hang unfinished.  

She looked him in the eye and said, 'Will you please fuck my ass tonight, sir?'

'Much better.'

With that, they began to kiss passionately, him holding her tightly, occasionally nibbling at her tiny neck.  Without much in the way of conscious thought or intent, he found himself inside her again, and rolled so she could ride him.  This was one of his favorite positions, because he could watch her pretty face, as she rode him.  It also allowed access to twist her nipples and give her the pleasure pain she craved.  

That reminded him of one of the presents he'd bought for her, and rolled over far enough to retrieve it from the bedside table.  She watched him as he brought the devices up and attached them to her nipples.  She breathed in quickly from the pain and thought to herself, 'Fuck, they hurt...it feels so good!'

'Thank you sir...I love them.'

With that, she began riding him in earnest.  The clamps hurt so good and he would occasionally apply downward pressure to the chain running between them, to further heighten her sensation.  She howled in both pleasure and pain as her hips moved.  Her already tight pussy gripped his hard cock with greater intensity as she neared her next orgasm.  He knew she wouldn't last much longer and she didn't.  She wailed at the top of her lungs and pounded his chest with her tiny fists as the wave of pleasure ripped through her body.  

He pushed her off of him and pulled her to the side of the bed, yanking her to the floor, and bending her over the bed again.  

'Do you want my cock in your ass?'

She nodded and gave a little 'mmmhmm'.

'No, I want to hear it.  Beg me for what you want.'

'Please fuck my ass; I need to feel your cock everywhere. Please fuck my ass!'  

While she was begging, he retrieved a bottle of lube from the nightstand, and put just a few drops on his cock.  She seemed to like it more when it hurt going in.  Grabbing her hips, he guided himself into position and drove his cock home, causing her to scream. 

'Is that what you wanted, slut?'

She could only wail in reply.

Once he built a bit of a rhythm, he began with the pain and degradation she loved so much.  This time, it brought out a little professorial monster.  Gone was the submissive, replaced by a unrepentant hedonist, completely on fire.  She began to taunt him.

'Are you spanking me?  I can barely feel it.'

He spanked her harder, leaving more pronounced welts on her ass with each swat.

'Surely, you can do better than that.'

He went safeties free and began wailing on her as hard as he could.  Administering more pain would require slugging the woman.  Yet, she continued to taunt him.  He began to wonder what he'd created.  But that was enough impudence from his possession; she needed to be taught a lesson.  Rather than continuing to spank her, he grabbed her hair, pulled her head up, and wrapped his hands around her delicate neck.  He'd never choked a woman before and he was a bit tentative at first.  Another taunt came and he tightened his grip, never letting up his assault on her ass.  He knew how her body reacted to every stimulus and could feel both pleasure and a touch of panic.  Perfect.  After a minute of so of this, she settled down and he removed his hands from her neck and paused fucking her.  With the restriction removed, she gasped for air.  She wasn't sure if she liked being choked or not.  It was definitely something she wanted him to do again, just to make sure.  

Reaching into the nightstand, he retrieved the other present he bought for her.  A remote control vibrating egg.

'Put this in your pussy...feel what it's like to have both holes occupied.'  

She complied and slipped it inside.  He could feel it on the other side of the wall between.  He recommenced his attack on her ass, with all the intensity he could muster.  No longer was he fucking her for her.  She sensed what was happening and how he was using her ass to make himself cum.  She began screaming, pleading for his hot cum.  That was the final check in the launch sequence; neither could stop it if they wanted to.  As they were barreling toward the grand finale of the evening's events, he turned the vibrating egg to its highest setting.  

That was all it took to push them over the edge with a vengeance.  She let out one final scream, then began to lose control of her body.  The combination of sights, sounds, and sensations drove him over the edge.  He snarled one last thing to her.

'I'm fucking cumming in your ass, whore. Take it like the cumslut you are.'

He flooded her ass with his load just as her orgasm reached its zenith.  Just as he pumped the last of his seed into her, what little control of her body she had left disappeared and she went completely limp.  Had his arms not already been around her, she would have dropped like a wet towel.  Instead, he held her until she regained a bit of control of her legs,  then assisted in getting her into his bed.  After her eyes refocused, she looked at him in awe and told him that was the most intense orgasm she'd ever had.

'Can I come over tomorrow night and do it again?'

Love Is a Battlefield

If you think about it, being a part of a loving relationship has a lot of similarities to guerilla warfare.  No, not between the two of you, but with the rest of the world.  Enemies abound, intent on destroying the union with your partner.  They're both internal and external; some may take the guise of a non-threat.  Stressful jobs, illness, financial difficulties, challenges as parents, death of a parent, the hot neighbor doing her best to insert herself.   The list is almost endless of what can attack a relationship.  

In order for that relationship to survive and thrive, it's important both parties work as a two person commando team, defending from multiple enemies, coming from different directions.  They need to neutralize these enemies, or at least reduce their respective threats, and then get to the chopper for exfil.  Without both parties fighting as brave warriors, working together, and covering each other's flank, the team (relationship) will be overrun and killed.  

I think we've all been in relationships where our 'brother in arms' failed to guard our flanks.  Perhaps, we were the ones who failed in our duties.  Then, there are the all too common relationships that neither have the drive to fight.

And what happens when your teammate gets wounded and can no longer fight?  I'd argue that's an even greater test of character than how someone fights.  

My last serious relationship was with someone who it felt as though she was setting off flairs, so the enemy knew where to aim.  And when I got hit, she seemed really sorry, but there was no way she was missing that chopper.

My ex-wife could best be characterized as shooting me in the body armor, during the battle, then lying about it.  Not my finest hour, but I was with someone who fought as a fearless warrior.  When one of us got wounded, the other would throw the other over their shoulder and make damned sure they both made the flight home.  Ultimately, I shot her just after she threw me onto the chopper floor.  Again, not my finest hour.  

How would you characterize your most memorable relationship?